Scientists call for action on radiation risks from mobile phones and wifi devices

Last week a global group of 190 scientists issued an international appeal, calling on the UN Secretary General and UN member states to address the risks of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields, which include radiofrequency radiation (RFR) emitting devices, such as cellular and cordless phones and their base stations, Wi-Fi, broadcast antennas and smart meters.

The scientists included Dr. Charles Teo, a prominent neurosurgeon at the Prince of Wales Hospital in Sydney, who founded the Cure Brain Cancer Foundation and publicly addressed the US Congress as part of US President Barack Obama’s vision to explore and map the human brain. Dr Teo has publicly warned that exposure to radiation should be minimised.

The action by the scientists comes on the back of the listing by the World Health Organisation of radiation from mobile phones as a possible carcinogen. The number of scientific studies showing links between radiation and a range of biological impacts – including cancer – continues to grow. The insurance industry refuses to provide insurance coverage against health impacts of radiofrequency radiation exposure. Why is it that so little is being done by governments to address the risks from the growing proliferation of radiation devices?

A small number of MPs have spoken up against the dangers radiofrequency radiation with Greens Senator Scott Ludlum the most prominent, but they have been met with a wall of opposition from Labor and the Coalition.

It is hard not to conclude that governments themselves are \conflicted. Governments receive significant revenues from auction of spectrum and many government authorities also receive income from rent of public spaces for mobile phone towers. Governments may also face legal claims for authorising the use of radiation exposure.

The risks from radiofrequency radiation are growing. NBN towers are now being installed across the country, with locals fighting to stop the installation of towers next to schools. Public education has become flooded with radiation. Every child in Victoria’s public education system is exposed to routers that have the capacity to simultaneously download content for a whole class on ipads and wireless devices.

When we look at the scientists that have joined together to raise the risk of radiofrequency radiation exposure, what we see is a lack of commercial self interest. These scientists are not funded by the corporate sector and indeed face the risk of campaigns against them if they speak up publicly – as Dr Teo has experienced first-hand.

Nevertheless they have the courage to speak out.

What we need is the courage to listen.

A full transcript of the scientists’ international appeal follows:

To: His Excellency Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations, Honorable Dr. Margaret Chan, Director-General of the World Health Organization, U.N. Member States

Scientists call for Protection from Non-ionizing Electromagnetic Field Exposure

We are scientists engaged in the study of biological and health effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields (EMF). Based upon peer-reviewed, published research, we have serious concerns regarding the ubiquitous and increasing exposure to EMF generated by electric and wireless devices. These include–but are not limited to–radiofrequency radiation (RFR) emitting devices, such as cellular and cordless phones and their base stations, Wi-Fi, broadcast antennas, smart meters, and baby monitors as well as electric devices and infra-structures used in the delivery of electricity that generate extremely-low frequency electromagnetic field (ELF EMF).

Scientific basis for our common concerns

Numerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines. Effects include increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being in humans. Damage goes well beyond the human race, as there is growing evidence of harmful effects to both plant and animal life.

These findings justify our appeal to the United Nations (UN) and, all member States in the world, to encourage the World Health Organization (WHO) to exert strong leadership in fostering the development of more protective EMF guidelines, encouraging precautionary measures, and educating the public about health risks, particularly risk to children and fetal development. By not taking action, the WHO is failing to fulfill its role as the preeminent international public health agency.

Inadequate non-ionizing EMF international guidelines

The various agencies setting safety standards have failed to impose sufficient guidelines to protect the general public, particularly children who are more vulnerable to the effects of EMF.

The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) established in 1998 the “Guidelines For Limiting Exposure To Time-Varying Electric, Magnetic, and Electromagnetic Fields (up to 300 GHz)”[1]. These guidelines are accepted by the WHO and numerous countries around the world. The WHO is calling for all nations to adopt the ICNIRP guidelines to encourage international harmonization of standards. In 2009, the ICNIRP released a statement saying that it was reaffirming its 1998 guidelines, as in their opinion, the scientific literature published since that time “has provided no evidence of any adverse effects below the basic restrictions and does not necessitate an immediate revision of its guidance on limiting exposure to high frequency electromagnetic fields[2]. ICNIRP continues to the present day to make these assertions, in spite of growing scientific evidence to the contrary. It is our opinion that, because the ICNIRP guidelines do not cover long-term exposure and low-intensity effects, they are insufficient to protect public health.

The WHO adopted the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classification of extremely low frequency electromagnetic field (ELF EMF) in 2002[3] and radiofrequency radiation (RFR) in 2011[4]. This classification states that EMF is a possible human carcinogen (Group 2B). Despite both IARC findings, the WHO continues to maintain that there is insufficient evidence to justify lowering these quantitative exposure limits.

Since there is controversy about a rationale for setting standards to avoid adverse health effects, we recommend that the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) convene and fund an independent multidisciplinary committee to explore the pros and cons of alternatives to current practices that could substantially lower human exposures to RF and ELF fields. The deliberations of this group should be conducted in a transparent and impartial way. Although it is essential that industry be involved and cooperate in this process, industry should not be allowed to bias its processes or conclusions. This group should provide their analysis to the UN and the WHO to guide precautionary action.

Wednesday, May 27, 2015

Ionospheric Heaters and Destroying the Van Allen Belts

Could we save satellites and astronauts by wiping out the
Van Allen belts?

By Charles Q. Choi Posted 26 Feb 2014 | 15:00 GMT

Electric Light Orchestrated? Alas, even if we took control
of the Van Allen belts, it probably wouldn’t result in more auroras.

The radiation belts around Earth are loaded with dangerous
protons and electrons that can damage spacecraft. Now researchers are launching
experiments to see if they can clear away the high-energy
particles that pose the hazard by blasting them with radio waves.

When humans began exploring space, the first major find was
the Van Allen radiation belts, doughnut-shaped zones of magnetically trapped,
highly energetic charged particles. The Van Allen belts consist mainly of two
rings: The inner belt starts roughly 1000 kilometers above Earth’s surface and
extends up to 9600 km, while the outer belt stretches from about 13 500 to 58 000
km above Earth. The location and shapes of the belts can vary, and they can
even merge completely.

High-energy protons are found within the area of the inner
belt, whose size remains generally stable over the course of years to decades.
The outer belt, on the other hand, is home to high-energy electrons and can
vary dramatically in size and shape over the course of hours or days.

An error occurred.

Unable to execute
Javascript.

The huge amounts of radiation in the Van Allen belts can
pose major risks for the host of satellites that pass through or orbit within
these swaths of space. There are ways to make spacecraft more resistant against
this radiation. For instance, spikes on their surfaces known as electron
emitters can radiate away excess lower-energy electrons that might otherwise
accumulate and cause a spark. In addition, shielding can help keep high-energy
protons and electrons from penetrating nonconducting materials and building up
inside them, which could lead to a damaging discharge.

However, decades of models and observations suggest a more
dramatic solution: using carefully tuned electromagnetic waves to drive these
particles out of space and into Earth’s atmosphere. Scientists first explored
the idea of dispersing electrons in the outer belt, and they are now targeting
protons in the inner belt.

“It’s really mind-boggling to think there could be human
control over such huge volumes of space,” says Jacob Bortnik, a
space physicist at the University of California, Los Angeles. “On Earth we
control nature all the time, like building dams, but the prospect of doing it
in space is fascinating—it seems a bit like science fiction.”

“The result would be a little bit like auroras, although you
wouldn’t see them,” Bortnik says.

Fig. 1. Observation geometry and image data from two
low-light imaging systems capturing 557.7-nm emissions from a bull’s-eye-shaped
artiﬁcial ionospheric plasma over the HAARP facility. A reconstruction
based on the image data shows the central spot and the ring to form two
distinct artiﬁcial layers separated in altitude by ∼15
km, which matches closely the multiple layers seen in ionosonde echoes (lower
right).

The problem with that approach is getting VLF waves through
the ionosphere, the layer of the atmosphere that sits about 80 to 640 km above
Earth. “That layer is very conductive, so it’s hard to get signals through it
efficiently,” Bortnik says.

Another strategy would station satellites that emit VLF
waves in the radiation belts. “The problem is that you’d need quite a lot of
energy,” Bortnik says, and large antennas that would be challenging to fit onto
spacecraft.

Still, Bortnik points out, the U.S. Air Force’s Demonstration and
Science Experiments (DSX) satellite, set for launch in 2016, will carry an
instrument to monitor the effects that VLF waves broadcast in space might have
on these dangerous electrons. “Those experiments can show how well VLF waves
actually do, and maybe change what we think we know about what is needed to
clear away electrons,” Bortnik says.

Initial efforts to clear the Van Allen belts targeted
electrons because they tend to get trapped there as the result of high-altitude
nuclear explosions. In 1962, a U.S. high-altitude nuclear weapons test named Starfish
Prime generated a highly energetic artificial electron belt that disabled
the first commercial communications satellite, TelStar 1, so researchers sought
ways to protect spacecraft from nuclear weapons used in space.

However, it’s the protons in the inner belt that scientists
have recently explored. Getting rid of them would potentially open up valuable
new orbits for satellites and make travel safer for astronauts, says Maria de
Soria-Santacruz Pich, whose Ph.D. work at MIT was on manipulating the Van
Allen belts. It might also be impossible.

An error occurred.

Unable to execute
Javascript.

“Protons are heavy, about 2000 times heavier than electrons,
so if you imagine a proton bashing into a piece of silicon, it can do a whole
lot more damage than an electron,” Bortnik says. “Clearing them out would be
good.”

Dr. Jacob Bortnik, UCLA “consultant to
QuakeFinder, based in Palo Alto, CA. QuakeFinder uses a chain of search-coil
magnetometers to look for possible magnetic precursors to large earthquakes, as
well as DEMETER satellite data.”

Pich and her colleagues recently refined
the computational strategy needed to figure out what frequencies
space-based antennas should use and how much power is needed. However, Pich
also found that to disperse all the protons from the region, you’d need a
million 15-meter antennas operating for a few years, “which is indeed not
feasible in
the near future,” she says.

Nonetheless, Pich noted, her calculations assume that the
waves these antennas generate do not bounce back and forth inside the inner
belt. If they do, that could greatly improve their effectiveness, potentially
making the strategy possible. A satellite mission would decide the matter one
way or another, but there’s a lot of engineering work needed to even propose
such a mission, she says.

It remains uncertain as to whether removing these radiation
belts might have unintended consequences.

“At present we don’t think there is any downside to not
having them, but as with all things geophysical, it is hard to know all the
complex interconnections between the various systems and estimate the full
effect of removing the radiation belts completely,” Bortnik says.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: The military has been trying to destroy
or control our ionosphere, magnetosphere, and Van Allen Belts for over fifty
years and now it is getting crazy. I find it highly ironic that Dr.
Bortnik shoots electromagnetic missiles around our planet AND predicts
earthquakes due to heated skies….. RRRREALLY!?! I see what you did there,
chicken before the egg my butt. Read more about “radiation belt
remediation” and the whole story here on our HAARP and the Sky Heaters page]

Joel's comments: The ICNIRP and ARPANSA RF electric field limits are likely too permissive to protect the health of workers and the general public. Nonetheless, the limits for the general public were exceeded on the bridge roof of this vessel.

Radio Hazard Safety Assessment for Marine Ship Transmitters: Measurements Using a New Data Collection Method and Comparison with ICNIRP and ARPANSA Limits

Malka N. Halgamuge. Radio Hazard Safety Assessment for Marine Ship Transmitters: Measurements Using a New Data Collection Method and Comparison with ICNIRP and ARPANSA Limits. Published: 19 May 2015. (This article belongs to the Special Issue Electromagnetic Fields and Health)

Abstract

We investigated the levels of radio frequency electromagnetic fields (RF EMFs) emitted from marine ship transmitters. In this study, we recorded the radio frequency (RF) electric field (EF) levels emitted from transmitters from a marine vessel focusing on the areas normally occupied by crew members and passengers. Previous studies considered radiation hazard safety assessment for marine vessels with a limited number of transmitters, such as very high-frequency (VHF) transceivers, radar and communication transmitters. In our investigation, EF levels from seven radio transmitters were measured, including: VHF, medium frequency/high frequency (MF/HF), satellite communication (Sat-Com C), AISnavigation, radar X-band and radar S-band.

Measurements were carried out in a 40 m-long, three-level ship (upper deck, bridge deck and bridge roof) at 12 different locations. We developed a new data-collection protocol and performed it under 11 different scenarios to observe and measure the radiation emissions from all of the transmitters.

In total, 528 EF field measurements were collected and averaged over all three levels of the marine ship with RF transmitters: the measured electric fields were the lowest on the upper deck (0.82–0.86 V/m), the highest on the bridge roof (2.15–3.70 V/m) and in between on the bridge deck (0.47–1.15 V/m).

The measured EF levels were then assessed for compliance with the occupational and general public reference levels of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) guidelines and the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) standards. The ICNIRP and the ARPANSA limits for the general public were exceeded on the bridge roof; nevertheless, the occupational limits were respected everywhere. The measured EF levels, hence, complied with the ICNIRP guidelines and the ARPANSA standards.

In this paper, we provide a new data collection model for future surveys, which could be conducted with larger samples to verify our observations. Furthermore, this new method could be useful as a reference for researchers and industry professionals without direct access to the necessary equipment.

In this investigation, we performed measurements and analysed radio frequency radiation emitted by the transmitters aboard a marine vessel, focusing on areas normally occupied by crew members and passengers. In total, 528 electric field measurements were taken. Additionally, we developed a new data collection protocol and performed various scenarios to accurately measure the radiation from all transmitters. Under the normal operating conditions, there were a few marine ship transmitters and antennas transmitting continuously, and other radios operate intermittently. By considering this, for the first time, we report measuring the electric field from each transmitter condition, which is insignificant, and this must be carefully taken into account for future studies. Our results show that the electric field levels were highest on the bridge roof and the lowest in the upper deck, and the measured values were within a range of 0.001–39.46 V/m. The limits for the general public were exceeded on the bridge roof; nonetheless, the occupational limits were respected everywhere. Hence, this complieswith the occupational and general public reference levels of the ICNIRP guidelines and the ARPANSA standards. Some further conclusions that can be drawn from this paper are: (i) electric field levels were high with the VHF fixed (Sailor 6006) transmitter; and (ii) high frequency electric field levels that are radiated from the vessels’ transmitters on the bridge roof will not have much impact for crew members and passengers. Nevertheless, this study should be useful as a reference for many researchers andindustry professionals without direct access to the necessary equipment. Further research is desired to determine the electric field levels for a larger amount of ships using the proposed protocol in this paper. Such research would provide a basis for establishing safety distances and support the development of guidelines by suitable authorities.

--

Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D., DirectorCenter for Family and Community HealthSchool of Public HealthUniversity of California, Berkeley

BACKGROUND: Nowadays mobile phone is very popular, causing concern about the effect it has on people's health. Parotid salivary glands are in close contact to cell phone while talking with the phone and the possibility of being affected by them. Limited studies have evaluated the effect of cell phone use on the secretions of these glands; so this study was designed to investigate the effects of duration of mobile phone use on the total antioxidant capacity of saliva.

METHODS: Unstimulated saliva from 105 volunteers without oral lesions collected. The volunteers based on daily usage of mobile phones were divided into three groups then total antioxidant capacity of saliva was measured by Ferric Reducing Ability of Plasma (FRAP) method. Data were analyzed by SPSS software version 19. ANOVA was used to compare 3 groups and post-hoc Tukey test to compare between two groups.

RESULTS: Average total antioxidant capacities of saliva in 3 groups were 657.91 µmol/lit, 726.77 µm/lit and 560.17 µmol/lit, respectively. The two groups had statistically significant different (P = 0.039).

CONCLUSION: Over an hour talking with a cell phone decreases total antioxidant capacity of saliva in comparison with talking less than twenty minutes.

Article in the Times 26.5.15 ...."Pop festival fans turn off and tune in":

More than 1,500 people spent the bank holdiday weekend at one of hte first festivals of the summer - but there wasn't a tweet or a selfie to prove it.

The crowd gathered for Britain's first 'digital detoxing' event, a phone-free celebration organised by Unplugged Weekend. Using a phone was impossible at the Innocent Unplugged festival in Kent woodland. There was no wi-fi no 3G signal and electricity was generated by solar or pedal power.

...Lucy Pearson and Vikki Bates two twenty somethings from London founded the weekend last year after meeting on a meditative trip to the Sahara. they organise workshops and retreats throughout Britain and Europe.

Theri trips consist of yoga and music encouraging a technology-obsessed generation to turn off its phones. they said "While we embrace all things digital...there's a lot to be gained from taking time out to go gadget free"

Oncologist Nearly Fired for "Raising Concerns"

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Words like epidemic and genocide accompany discussion of the proliferation of microwave technology. Indeed, it was Dr. Devra Davis, epidemiologist and author of Disconnect and founder of the Environmental Health Trust in the United States, who first coined the phrase “the slow roll-out of an epidemic” of a host of diseases including cancer.

The predicted epidemic has also been anticipated by the Royal College of Physicians in Ireland five years ago when they sought more money to protect patients while in care.

Evidence - if not proof - of the emerging cancer epidemic comes from a top Irish medic who claimed his job was threatened (a common occurrence in the scientific community) for questioning the health service. The following article is instructive:

There are other medical professionals in Europe who are on the firing line who wish to remain anonymous.

It is worth noting that the introduction of driverless vehicles can/will have an impact on car owners. If General Motors is not challenged by it's claim to ownership of software which makes a car work, companies and governments can/will control the car owner's ability to travel in their own vehicles. This is an important issue for personal freedom.

Again, thank you to Lyn McLean, Australia, Josh del Sol, U.S.A., and Martin Weatherall, Canada, for their leadership and sharing their work.

All I Really Need to Know About EMF I Learned After
My Wife Got Sick

A Brief History of Electrosmog

BY JONATHAN MIRIN

Published: May 26, 2015

"Doubt is our product
since it is the best means of competing with the 'body of fact' that exists in
the minds of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a
controversy." — Tobacco executive internal memo, 1969

"There really are
people who feel pain, etc., related to EMF, etc., and rather than have them
becoming hysterical, etc., I would quietly leave them alone." — Former
California Public Utilities Commission President Michael Peevey in an email to Pacific
Gas & Electric's Brian Cherry seized by California authorities, 2010.

History was never my
favorite subject. I preferred English, theatre, religion — subjects where the
imagination seemed unrestricted by the weight of historical facts. Of course, I
had heard the truism about not being able to understand the present without
knowing the past. I appreciated the idea intellectually. But it wasn't until my
wife Godeliève Richard, a Swiss dancer/choreographer and visual artist, became
sick in the spring of 2010 and we came to understand, after three torturous
years, that the root of her suffering was her sensitivity to RF (radio
frequency) wireless radiation of the sort emitted by cell towers, cell phones,
computers trying to pick up Wifi, Wifi enabled routers, cordless phones,
tablets, our electric meter, etc., etc., etc., that I became an avid student of
history.

We began reading books,
articles, websites. We watched documentaries. We spoke with activists. It took
me several months to completely accept that EHS (Electromagnetic
Hypersensitivity) was what had derailed our lives and stolen time and energy
from our now three-year-old son. Members of our family and friends quietly
confided their belief to me that this must be a mental problem. In a way, I
wished they were right. How would we live? How would she survive?

Sometimes at four in the
morning after another sleepless night when we were deciding whether or not to
go to the emergency room, it seemed like death was a possible final outcome.
Luckily, we found a solution for our home that has allowed her to sleep well
again and begin to heal, however she still can't leave the house for more than
a few hours at a time. Among other adjustments we have made, a doctor
recommended a company making biotuners, a small rectangular casing placed on
the fuse box in order to deactivate the harmful information from electrosmog.

One of my many layers of
resistance to accepting that electromagnetic pollution or electrosmog was what
had destroyed her health was a simple, naive faith in the regulatory powers of
the U.S. government. This radiation is literally everywhere. If it could be so
dangerous, how could it be allowed on such a massive scale? But after I found
the startling analogy between RF and asbestos and cigarettes laid out on more
than one advocacy group site, things began to click.

The tobacco industry’s
manipulation of the science and the U.S. court system began in the 1950s. In
1981, Japanese researcher Takeshi Hirayama definitively established the link
between cancer and second hand smoke. Every year that passed added to the death
toll in America. Why the lag time? One reason was that the tobacco industry had
hired product defense firms that specialized in one product: doubt. If you can
define the parameters of a scientific study that you pay for, it turns out
there is quite a good chance the scientists you have hired will reach a
conclusion that supports your position that there is no problem. Cell phone
companies have hired, literally, some of the same supporting cast used by the
tobacco industry.

In May, 2014, tobacco
scientist Peter Valberg of product defense firm Gradient, testified in
Worcester, MA, to the Worcester Zoning Board of Appeals about the safety of
National Grid's smart meter pilot program. Smart meters are two-way RF
transmission devices that the Massachusetts of Department of Public Utilities
issued an order for utility companies to install on June 12, 2014. The Mass DPU
relied on Valberg's testimony in their assessment that the radiation emitted from
smart meters was safe because it is below FCC limits. A fraud complaint was
filed with the MA Attorney General's office against the DPU in March.

It turns out our electric
meter was installed in the late 90's already equipped to pulse RF radiation
every couple of seconds from the meter to the street. I called our electric
company and told them that radiation made my wife sick and asked that they pull
in to our driveway as they drive by and read the meter in person. I was told
this was not possible. I suggested that we could simply shield the meter and
they could lift the shielding off to take the readings. But this, they warned,
would lead to potentially more expensive "estimated readings" when
their truck got back to headquarters without a reading from our meter.

Telecom Companies Hold A
Legislative Trump Card

Between 1994 and 1998,
telecom companies made nearly $12 million in campaign contributions to members
of Congress. In 1996, they helped write the Telecommunications Act, which
stipulates that "no state or local government . . . may regulate the
placement, construction and modification of personal wireless facilities on the
basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent
that such facilities comply with the [Federal Communication Commission's]
regulations concerning such emissions."

This provision stripped my
town's Zoning Board of Appeals, not to mention every U.S. individual, local and
state government, of the ability to say “no” to a cell tower proposal on the
basis of health concerns. The result is that although the now more than 6,000
independent studies demonstrating health risks may be mentioned during the hearing
process, the tower AT&T proposed on our road had to be denied on some other
grounds, like its proximity to a road designated as a Scenic Byway or perhaps
the average of 15 percent drop in property value for those unfortunate enough
to live next to it.

Luckily for us — and even
better for the elderly people and children who would have been living about 150
feet from the tower — AT&T withdrew their proposal. They didn't say why,
but looking at the pattern of new cell tower placement around the U.S., we can
surmise that this was a business decision based on their strategy of following
the path of least resistance. In other words, putting a new tower on the road
of a publicly known person suffering from EHS probably looked a little too
costly. My wife and I make plays for a living and our latest, Innocenzo,
tells the tale of a clown who, after visiting many doctors and healers, finally
realizes that he has become electro-hypersensitive. We didn't have to do much
research.

Cell companies have become
adept at hiding their antennas and AT&T wanted to stash the one designated
for our road in an oversized barn silo. In Switzerland, where we tour our plays
in French, there is a tower hidden in a church steeple not far from our
apartment. Consequently, although Switzerland has the lowest RF limits in the
world, Godeliève has a harder time leaving the house there than the rural road
where we live in the U.S. Unfortunately, hiding cell towers or decorating them
as trees does nothing to change health impacts.

A German study published
in 2004 (Eger, et al), found that living within 400 meters of a cell tower
increased the likelihood of developing cancer by 300%. These results are
typical of the growing number of studies being done outside the U.S. where the
distinctive lack (read $0) of federal funds being spent on RF safety research
seems unsurprising given the "over 400 million dollars in political
contributions and lobbying [by the wireless industry]," according to
lawyer Andrew Campanelli who now specializes in preventing unwanted cell tower
installation after starting his career as a telecom lawyer.

Everyone is
Electro-sensitive

It might seem, at first
glance, that people like Godeliève should be shipped off to an island so that
the rest of the un-sensitive population can enjoy their wireless lives.
Although countries are establishing radiation free zones for people like her,
everyone is electro-sensitive. Everyone's melatonin production (the substance
which cleans up cancer-causing free radicals, among other things, while we
sleep) is inhibited when exposed to levels of RF currently deemed safe. Humans
are electrical beings composed of cells that have been proven damaged by much,
much lower levels of RF than you would experience in your typical coffee shop
or elementary school.

One key historical moment
concerns the Federal Communication Commission standards themselves. Back in
1953, researcher Herman Schwan, a former Nazi scientist imported in 1949 to
work for the U.S. Navy, suggested a thermal (heat) exposure limit for RFs based
on heating effects he had noted when radar operators cooked hot dogs in their
microwave beams. In other words, if your cell phone doesn't measurably heat
your skin, it must be okay, even if you are a fetus, newborn or otherwise more
vulnerable being than the top 10% of U.S. military recruits in 1989, the skull
of whom the FCC bases its SAR (specific absorption rate of RF by the brain)
calculations upon.

The patently absurd idea,
if you are a biologist, of no cellular damage happening below the thermal limit
has been challenged by the American Pediatric Association, the U.S. Department
of the Interior (who are concerned about effects on migratory birds), the
American Academy of Environmental Medicine, the California Medical Association,
Swisscom (in a patent application), and many others. The FCC standard is so
high that telecom companies have had no incentive to engineer anything that
might be even a little bit safer. Isn't it every person's right to stream an HD
movie on his/her phone while waiting in line at the post office? How about two
at time? How about 16?

Nothing like the changes
in federal policy that are needed have ever come as an initiative from the
corporations or government. It has only happened, as Ralph Nader likes to
remind us, because people came together in the common wish for a place where
people can drink clean water, breathe clean air, share the same rights as other
citizens and, in this case, be able to live their lives without having their
health damaged in the relative safety of their own homes.

Global RF Reduction
Efforts

One of the ironies of the
RF radiation puzzle is that there are many straightforward steps that can be
taken by individuals, governments and corporations to reduce this multiple
source 24/7 exposure. This year France and Taiwan became the first countries to
pass national legislation aimed at protecting the public from wireless
emissions. In this case, they took their cue from emerging health research and
primarily defined the public as very young children, whose thinner skulls allow
lower levels of RF to penetrate deeper into the brain. There will be no more
wi-fi in French nursery schools; in elementary schools it will be turned off
except when needed.

National legislation of
this sort, besides being progressive and forward-thinking also happens to be in
the financial self-interest of governments around the world. Insurance
companies have quietly stopped offering coverage for wireless-related health
problems. Who is going to pay for skyrocketing rates of cancer, Alzheimer's,
ADHD, autism, and burn-out leading to missed work days? Since there can be no
definitive 1-to-1 correlation for the multiple environmental factors weighing
on our systems, how are you going to make anyone pay the bill for what Swedish
researcher Lennart Hardell descibes as "the world's greatest biological
experiment ever"?

The makers of wireless technology
are in a terrible spot. Like the tobacco companies, they have to keep denying
the existence of a problem or face major legal and financial repercussions.

The 2011 World Health
Organization classifies RF as a Class 2B "possible carcinogen," along
with lead and car exhaust. In the 2014 French documentary "Ondes, Science,
Manigances" (Microwaves, Science and Lies), director Jean Heches
demonstrates that despite this classification, the WHO is extremely influenced
(to put it politely) by the telecom industry. Sweden, the first country where
EHS is officially recognized as a functional impairment, offers a cell phone
network and a provider of health care coverage to around 300,000 people with
the sensitivity. Lennart Hardell's 2014 research on long term cell phone use in
that country suggests that RF should be re-classified as a Class 1 "known
carcinogen." However, this reclassification is a financial impossibility
(from a certain privileged point of view) as there are trillions of dollars and
hefty sections of the ecomony depending on the perpetuation of doubt.
Unsurprisingly, Hardell has become the victim of a smear campaign.

The makers of wireless
technology are in a terrible spot. Like the tobacco companies, they have to
keep denying the existence of a problem or face major legal and financial
repercussions. Utility companies and the state bureaucracies charged with
regulating them (or abetting them in California's case), after having installed
RF-emitting transmitters on our homes, are in the same bind. So you can bet no
corporate movement will be made towards protecting the public until we create a
financial incentive for them — or they have no choice. That is, if history has
anything to teach us.

Jonathan Mirin's plays
have been performed around the U.S. and internationally. He co-founded Piti
Theatre Company with his wife Godeliève Richard in 2004, whose recent
productions include 28 FEET (about growing up with Crohn's disease), To Bee or
Not to Bee (about honeybee disappearance) and Innocenzo. For more about Piti
Theatre Company's production Innocenzo visit www.ptco.org/innocenzo. Upcoming tour
dates include: June 2, 2015: Greenfield Community Television live taping,
Greenfield MA, and June 6, 2015: Shelburne Falls' Riverfest, at the Shelburne
Senior Center, 1 pm.

Follow by Email

Followers

About Me

While I have always been extremely health conscious and am presently in excellent health, I did become temporarily out-of-commission (i.e. I was really sick) in 2005 with a number of at the time unexplainable symptoms. I was quite puzzled at the time because I had been eating mainly organically grown food, drinking spring water, doing Yoga every morning, and going to the gym several times a week. In other words, I was doing everything one is supposed to do to stay healthy. I was not supposed to get sick. It took me six months before discovering or even imagining the main source of the problem - which was in fact "overexposure to electromagnetic" - especially microwave - radiation. I was living within 200 meters of two cell phone towers at the time and within 500 meters of a 3rd one with numerous WiFi signals bleeding into my apartment from adjacent neighbors. I developed a host of symptoms, which are found in what has been misleadingly described as Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS) -- but much more accurately described as Radio Wave or Microwave Sickness. Large numbers of people in the USA suddenly started getting sick in 1984...